Lindsey v. . Sanderlin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lindsey v. . Sanderlin

10 S.E. 518, 104 N.C. 331

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 518 (Lindsey v. . Sanderlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lindsey v. . Sanderlin, 10 S.E. 518, 104 N.C. 331 (N.C. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Shepherd, J.:

The argument of the plaintiff’s counsel was addressed to the general character of his Honor’s charge in reference to negligence. We regret that we are precluded from passing upon that question. There is not only a failure to assign error (see McKinnon v. Morrison and Carlton v. R. R. Co., at this term), but the case expressly states that the instructions given were not excepted to.

The judgment, therefore, must be Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shepherd, J.:

The argument of the plaintiff’s counsel was addressed to the general character of his Honor’s charge in reference to negligence. We regret that we are precluded from passing upon that question. There is not only a failure to assign error (see McKinnon v. Morrison and Carlton v. R. R. Co., at this term), but the case expressly states that the instructions given were not excepted to.

The judgment, therefore, must be Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 518, 104 N.C. 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-sanderlin-nc-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack